03:55:313 (1) - would make this a 1/4 slider to transition better into the next pattern, and for all the repeat sliders in this section, have you tried making them 3/4? so that there's no awkward pause in between them 03:53:132 (6,7) - 03:56:041 (6,7) -

00:04:041 (1,3) - You could arrange this more aesthetically. The slider-tail overlap looks kinda bad. Not a good start to the map haha. 00:06:950 (1,3) - Idea taken from here

00:26:586 (1,2,3,4) - I think the notes here are kinda quiet. The increased spacing doesn't feel necessary here. You could continue with small jumps imo since theres not a really noticeably build up in the melody. 00:32:768 (7) - Position this so it doesn't touch 4 and 5? Would clean up the aesthetics a bit. 00:41:859 (1,2,3,4) - This looks kinda inconsistent cuz only 3 is a circle. Could say the same for 00:48:041 (3) - . If you ahve a reason to let me know.01:10:950 (1,2) - Even tho this is a slider > slider jump, it's still quite large because the heads are far apart. Can you bring them closer? Cuz i don't think 2 is that exceptional.Kiai seems nice. I like the triplets in between jumps, it's more interesting lol. 01:48:768 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is technically okay, but I think it's better if you used a pattern that didn't overlap here, just because its the first time you're introducing this 1/1 rhythm, and its coming right out of a 1/2 jump that is a very similar distance. The others you use here are fine cuz players will know the rhythm by then and expect the gap, but here I think it could confuse people.01:54:041 (1,2) - I would actually swap NC"s here and put it on 01:54:222 - instead.02:13:132 (6,7,1) - I feel like positioning 1 more to the left will give a nicer angle.

02:23:313 (6) - I think you missed a clap here. 02:40:768 (1) - The sound ur mapping here is really unique so maybe use a different slider design? SV's can work, but different slider designs will look cooler. 03:31:677 (5) - This slider made the flow feel a bit weird. I would just rotate this like 180 degrees or something and continue the clockwise flow. It could create a nice jump or flowbreak into 03:32:041 (1) - and emphasize the downbeat too.03:44:768 (3,4,5) - This sounds better when the rhythm is Ctrl+G'ed. I don't think the rhythm you have works too well with the 1/4's. 04:34:950 (1,1,1,1) - Nice

Kalitarks

01:17:313 (2,3,4) - Cool trick you can do is take a copy of 01:17:313 (2) - Convert to stream, and use the circle to create a structure.

01:44:404 (1,3) - Can you make this slider more even since its being used in a parallel pattern?02:15:495 (2) - This could be positioned more evenly.02:15:677 (3) - Same here.

02:33:495 (6,1,2) - Yo, that wave slider is being used in a double blanket, please make it nicer ;c. If it were independent, then i'd be okay with the design, but since you're using other patterns built around its curves, it ends up making the pattern look kinda bad if you use that kind of slider design ;c02:39:495 (1) - ^ 03:59:677 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Hmm. I think people might have problems with the aesthetic here, but it plays pretty well. Maybe 5 could be positioned more in the middle of 1 and 3?

Monstrata wrote:

00:04:041 (1,3) - You could arrange this more aesthetically. The slider-tail overlap looks kinda bad. Not a good start to the map haha. 00:06:950 (1,3) - Idea taken from here fixd

00:26:586 (1,2,3,4) - I think the notes here are kinda quiet. The increased spacing doesn't feel necessary here. You could continue with small jumps imo since theres not a really noticeably build up in the melody. fix 00:32:768 (7) - Position this so it doesn't touch 4 and 5? Would clean up the aesthetics a bit. fix 00:41:859 (1,2,3,4) - This looks kinda inconsistent cuz only 3 is a circle. Could say the same for 00:48:041 (3) - . If you ahve a reason to let me know. lol i though that if i'd put a kick on 3 it would be an overmap, but listening closely it isn't overmapped at all, fixed01:10:950 (1,2) - Even tho this is a slider > slider jump, it's still quite large because the heads are far apart. Can you bring them closer? Cuz i don't think 2 is that exceptional. arrangedKiai seems nice. I like the triplets in between jumps, it's more interesting lol. 01:48:768 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is technically okay, but I think it's better if you used a pattern that didn't overlap here, just because its the first time you're introducing this 1/1 rhythm, and its coming right out of a 1/2 jump that is a very similar distance. The others you use here are fine cuz players will know the rhythm by then and expect the gap, but here I think it could confuse people. should be fine now01:54:041 (1,2) - I would actually swap NC"s here and put it on 01:54:222 - instead. looks better 02:13:132 (6,7,1) - I feel like positioning 1 more to the left will give a nicer angle. yea this is more interesting indeed

02:23:313 (6) - I think you missed a clap here. ops 02:40:768 (1) - The sound ur mapping here is really unique so maybe use a different slider design? SV's can work, but different slider designs will look cooler. Lasse slider :b 03:31:677 (5) - This slider made the flow feel a bit weird. I would just rotate this like 180 degrees or something and continue the clockwise flow. It could create a nice jump or flowbreak into 03:32:041 (1) - and emphasize the downbeat too. nice, but i don't know if 03:32:041 (1) - is too close now03:44:768 (3,4,5) - This sounds better when the rhythm is Ctrl+G'ed. I don't think the rhythm you have works too well with the 1/4's. fixed 04:34:950 (1,1,1,1) - Nice

01:37:677 (3) - how about add a new combo? 01:31:859 (1) - make it like this here split according to the lyrics. You need to apply the same to similar parts03:14:950 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - I want to raise a little objection. you made a mistake in catching the beat. the correct beat is like this 03:15:313 (4,1) - and the distance between 4 and 1 is too close. this makes it hard to reading and playing03:39:319 - unsnapped time line04:11:132 - better add a note here which is the starting point of the lyrics.

[Extra]

04:06:222 (1,2) - just a little trim. not badI have nothing to say on this map :3

Neoskylove wrote:

Q

[take control]00:06:222 (3,4) - why this is not stacked? stack for consistency i didn't stacked them since 00:06:222 (3) - 's sound on tail is "weird" so i wanted something new to not make it boring00:39:132 (2,5) - avoid overlap my whole mapping style is around overlaps and this one is ok ^^00:47:859 (2,3,4) - overmapping, sliderend don't have sound. dunno about this, because there is no clear beats there but the synth is still here so idk :v00:52:677 (4) - delete beat? nah, there is a triple01:30:313 (4) - overmapping it's a bit quiet here but there is definetly a 1/4 sound01:48:950 - add a betat since i'm introducing a new 1/1 rhythm here i don't think adding a beat here is a good idea04:30:950 (4,2) - overlap don't fit imo.

[take control]01:21:859 (1,2) - the shape can be more ocnsistent?01:25:132 (1,2) - I'll put the slider here and change its sv, but that way it will be the same with insane. I suggest u can nc this note 01:25:313 (2) - 01:32:768 (1) - blanket better?01:37:313 (2,4) - ^01:38:950 (2,4) - ^02:12:404 (3,5) - ^compare the two 01:43:313 (1,1) - and 02:56:404 (3,4) - the former ds should be closer?03:58:950 (3) - I prefer ctl+j04:22:222 (1,2) - I felt this ds becomes slow. I think the ds here can be gradually larger.04:56:041 (1) - delete nc?04:19:677 (1,2) - ^04:47:132 (2,1) - ds between the two can be larger. maybe u want it to be like this 03:03:677 (1,2,1) - but there's still kiai backward.

Emonal wrote:

[take control]01:21:859 (1,2) - the shape can be more ocnsistent? fixed01:25:132 (1,2) - I'll put the slider here and change its sv, but that way it will be the same with insane. I suggest u can nc this note 01:25:313 (2) - i could do this but i'm really focusing the vocals, so i don't want to miss the 'su'01:32:768 (1) - blanket better? it's not meant to be a blanket, so i think it's ok01:37:313 (2,4) - ^ i don't want to curve the slider here ^^01:38:950 (2,4) - ^ fixed02:12:404 (3,5) - ^ don't want to curve ^^compare the two 01:43:313 (1,1) - and 02:56:404 (3,4) - the former ds should be closer? oh ye fixed03:58:950 (3) - I prefer ctl+j nice04:22:222 (1,2) - I felt this ds becomes slow. I think the ds here can be gradually larger. yup04:56:041 (1) - delete nc? nah, i've been NCing every "yeah eh"04:19:677 (1,2) - ^04:47:132 (2,1) - ds between the two can be larger. maybe u want it to be like this 03:03:677 (1,2,1) - but there's still kiai backward. yeah i could, but i want to make it really slower and small spacing, then going back to the kiai

00:26:768 (2) - i don't really hear anything that this could be following, maybe turn 1 into a 1/2 slider instead?00:38:586 (1) - remove clap because of the lack of sound?01:04:222 (4,1,2,3,4) - make it a regular star?01:04:404 (1) - and 01:10:222 (1) - why not NC on every downbeat here like you did the rest of that part?01:29:132 (1) - i don't really feel like this is a good idea for a NC, yes the vocal is strong but it doesn't feel consistent with the rest of the combo patterns01:29:859 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - pls make this one a star, here i even shot a kudo so you can see how it looks01:53:495 (1) - remove NC?01:54:041 (2,1) - swap NCs for consistency02:40:041 (1) - remove NC here, you didn't place it before the first chorus02:40:768 (1) - the shape is really confusing to me also it looks bad02:40:791 - what is this greenline for?03:12:768 (5) - what about splitting it into 2 circles for more emphasis on the red tick sound, since it's not usually there although higher SV works aswell i guess03:13:859 (4) - do it here aswell if you apply the previous suggestion03:43:677 (1) - this is too loud imo, lower volume to 40% for a smoother crescendo?04:09:677 - no higher SV? would've felt cooler considering the higher vocals05:08:404 - wheres my gd

not rly a fan of how you handled NCing during the choruses (stuff like 01:29:132 (1) - or 01:40:768 (1) -), i would've stuck with consistent downbeat NCing except things like NCs for the "yeah hey"

Realazy wrote:

request w wheres my gd

[Take Control!]

00:26:768 (2) - i don't really hear anything that this could be following, maybe turn 1 into a 1/2 slider instead? oye00:38:586 (1) - remove clap because of the lack of sound? whitl'd instead01:04:222 (4,1,2,3,4) - make it a regular star? fixed01:04:404 (1) - and 01:10:222 (1) - why not NC on every downbeat here like you did the rest of that part? i love nc01:29:132 (1) - i don't really feel like this is a good idea for a NC, yes the vocal is strong but it doesn't feel consistent with the rest of the combo patterns e01:29:859 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - pls make this one a star, here i even shot a kudo so you can see how it looks e01:53:495 (1) - remove NC? i feel this is necessery but not necessary at the same time so ye removed01:54:041 (2,1) - swap NCs for consistency i like green02:40:041 (1) - remove NC here, you didn't place it before the first chorus why i can't nc orz02:40:768 (1) - the shape is really confusing to me also it looks badoke02:40:791 - what is this greenline for? FINALLY SOME RED // because i want the noisy sliderslide here since the song has the "same"03:12:768 (5) - what about splitting it into 2 circles for more emphasis on the red tick sound, since it's not usually there although higher SV works aswell i guess i prefer to keep my current slider with faster SV but i make the 2 slider NC and more noticeable to not being confused03:13:859 (4) - do it here aswell if you apply the previous suggestion03:43:677 (1) - this is too loud imo, lower volume to 40% for a smoother crescendo? ye, i make it even more crescendo04:09:677 - no higher SV? would've felt cooler considering the higher vocals why not05:08:404 - wheres my gd me ra mi pop

not rly a fan of how you handled NCing during the choruses (stuff like 01:29:132 (1) - or 01:40:768 (1) -), i would've stuck with consistent downbeat NCing except things like NCs for the "yeah hey" i think i fixed all ?

Abe Nana wrote:

[Insane]

01:37:677 (3) - how about add a new combo? 01:31:859 (1) - make it like this here split according to the lyrics. You need to apply the same to similar parts nah, removed this once since it's the only one inconsistent, it makes more sense

03:14:950 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - I want to raise a little objection. you made a mistake in catching the beat. the correct beat is like this 03:15:313 (4,1) - and the distance between 4 and 1 is too close. this makes it hard to reading and playing fixed, also fixed in last diff

03:39:319 - unsnapped time line fixed

04:11:132 - better add a note here which is the starting point of the lyrics. nah better leave it like this, they did, 2 first parts ignored that beat too